Should non-citizens pay the same tax if excluded from benefits?

You are the one categorizing immigrants

Good immigrant, bad immigrant?

Ask employers to pay a fair wage is fine? What in your opinion is a fair wage? For what job? Do you think a nurse should be paid more than a carpenter? Should the bin-man get more or less than a shelf stacker? I hope we'd all want to pay a qualified medic a bit more than either. And if the fair wage for the value the job creates a demand for investment advisors? How do we value work?

reforms policy would treat ILR holders like other visa categories. If that is so terrible, shouldn’t we broaden the discussion to what we owe all immigrants?

you seem to ignore or be oblivious to the fact that immigration status is largely selective based on wealth, education, family connections, Nation of origin (so implicitly racial) and sometimes even health. Other than the vanishingly small number of asylum seekers, most ILR holders are an incredibly privileged group. Have a bit of perspective before you engage in further moralising,

This thread is about people with IRL being targetted

I am fine with IRL after 5 years and helping people who don't have IRL yet.

Reform's policy is based on hatred, division imo

People with ILR are much more likely to be in a situation where they have resources vs those here under other immigration categories. If you truly cared about the plight of immigrants you would have more to say about those that are vulnerable today than those that might have additional red tape in the distant future.

My definition of 'fair' is quite simple. Equal work, equal contribution - equal benefits.

Looking at access to healthcare and benefits in France and the Netherlands - they're less restrictive than the current UK model, much less restrictive than the proposed one.

It's all very well saying you can go into something with eyes open and that's fair enough - but why would you think it's OK to make things worse?

And to circle back to fairness - if it's OK to discriminate based on something people do not choose (like nationality) - why isn't it OK to discriminate based on sex, skin colour, age, sexuality? You know, all those little things you can't discriminate on at present?

I am not wringing my hands in glee

You are fortunate to have a large savings pot and somewhere to go , now what about people who do not have that and can't go back to where they came from?

Why do think you have a better definition of ‘fair’ than I do?

Again, the first 10+ years of my time in the UK was without ILR - for a portion of that I had a spouse and young children. Don’t wring your hands for a change in policy for one visa category when there are many many in other categories facing the same vulnerabilities and you cannot be bothered to even discuss.

for my family it meant having a larger personal savings pot, discussion around how we would relocate if we needed to, and keeping doors open in my home country. It was an extra risk which we accepted and managed. I would expect the same if ILR rules changed and I chose not to pursue citizenship

False outrage at a policy officially announced by Reform?

Like the false outrage at £5m?

Personally I would like to see the qualifying period for ILR unchanged. I would like to see the NHS surcharge abolished for people without ILR. I would like to see people understand that immigrants are actually not the problem. Unfortunately the UK press doesn't allow for that to happen. I disapprove of the way the mainstream political parties are going as much as I do of Reform's plans.

But why are you opposed to fair treatment for people who come to live and work here?

i think it is hypocritical to wring your hands about the potential vulnerabilities of people with ILR on the very small chance of a proposed policy change when there are many many immigrants without ILR who experience the same vulnerabilities today - some of whom have been living and working in the UK longer than those with ILR.

there is a lot of false outrage because this came from Reform, but strip away party politics and it is a lot less controversial.

A lot of people simply like to think immigrants are to blame for their problems, they don't do a lot of thinking and happily swallow populist rhetorc

Reform does not have much more to offer.

What will happen to their children, spouse or other dependents @Labraradabrador ?

Slinging insults again. everyone has a different understanding of ‘fair’ and I am trying to explain mine, Not really conducive to discussion when you label anyone who approaches the question with a different perspective as a nazi or ‘lacking a moral compass’.

you might want to look at opinion polling around immigration- this is the whole reason we talk about reform policy at all - it resonates with way more people than you seem to think.

That is not whom we are talking about.

What will happen to an immigrant with ILR but no citizenship?

That is the very definition of perceived benefit. Yes, there is a cost associated with citizenship (despite @pointythings insistance that there is no difference) and at the moment many with ILR (myself included) don’t see enough of a benefit in order to pursue.

anecdotally I have several friends with longstanding ILR who have pursued citizenship over the last year or so purely for peace of mind. I get that it is a harder choice for some than others, but if you want the uk to be your permanent home then ultimately it is a choice. immigration policy changes can arrive from any party - the real risk probably isn’t reform (who are unlikely to gain a majority) but a broader shift in the public perception of immigration policy combined with a dire financial context that will affect how all parties approach this question.

Fortunately for me, I do.

And fortunately for me, Reform are falling apart. Fortunately for me, Restore are too Nazi for most Brist. And fortunately for everyone, most people aren't like you.

Again: why are you so opposed to people being treated fairly and decently?

What do you think happens to an immigrant without ILR?

Well I think you have an outrageous sense of entitlement. If you don’t like it, and if the system in your home country is soooo much better you always have the option to return.

I am all for immigration, and personally think the uk system is quite decent. I also think the proposed change would still be quite decent - it is relatively easy as a skilled worker to move to the UK, the system is fairly transparent, and for those skilled workers that decide to settle (which is NOT the majority at point of immigration) there is a clear path to doing so - even if the threshold were raised to allow access to the full safety net only upon citizenship.

the uk struggling to recruit immigrant talent has less to do with details around safety net provision and more to do with lagging economic prospects

But I have all the obligations a British national has... The obligation to pay taxes.The obligation to work. The obligation to abide by British law. And yet I should get fewer benefits than a British national, even though I may very well have paid in more over my lifetime.

Yep, you have a moral compass problem.

Go back to where they came from?

And if they can't afford to go back? Or can go back?

There would still be a path to full settled status though - citizenship.

you may prefer the current status quo of having all of the benefits and none of the long term obligations associated with ILR - have your cake and eat it too, what’s not to love - but get off your high horse about the possibility that this might change. You claim to be okay with a need for ‘qualifying’ - this would just be shifting the qualifying parameters.